A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity
9 Oct 2006
A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity: Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor
I was sent this book by the publishers, and avoided blogging on it, mainly because I usually only review books I find helpful, and I wondered what purpose reviewing is unfavorably would serve. Then I read this post on Tony Jones blog, about whether Emergent was moving beyond the orthodox, and that got me thinking about where the boundaries are for our discussions.
Whilst I believe Emergent should make space for safe discussions and room for people to doubt and question anything about our faith, it is something else to land and move beyond questioning to forming new beliefs that are outside orthodox christian faith. Whilst Emergent, and the much larger emerging church has allowed so many of us room to do that, this book was one step too far for me. And I offer that from me, not a statement for emergent.
Then Mike Morrell editor at the Ooze, emailed me with a reminder asking for reviews, even if they were dissenting. So with that in mind I offer this, with a heavy heart. I have met Spencer, he bought me a great dinner a few years ago, and I like him. But I did not like this book at all, and couldn’t. I’m sure I do the book a disservice, and may have misunderstood it, and offer this as a tentative outline of somethings that troubled me.
1. Heretic: A heretic is someone who denies orthodox Christian belief. This might be a clever word play but I don’t like it, and don’t think it’s necessary. I can’t see any reason to identify myself as a heretic. Spencer/Taylor also claim Jesus was the first heretic which I found bizarre, as Jesus is the basis for orthodox christian belief. Jesus was a radical reformer, and I’m all for radical reformation on an ongoing basis, but not heresy. And as I went through the book, I think Spencer expresses views that do indeed make him a heretic, with a small ‘h’.
(continued)
2. Anti-institutional: I go the impression that for Spencer/Taylor all organised religion is corrupt and bad, as if true spirituality can only exist outside any organisation. This feels like the myth of anarchist Christianity. It seems a call to an idealized version of spirituality, that has never existed and never will. The plea for this formation of faith seems more about anti-structure, anti-authority, and the move from structure to agency, than an understanding of the church in the bible and history.
3. Authentic spiritualty: The book seemed peppered with the call and mantra of self expression, again outside the corrupt organised church. Individualized, holistic self actualization and expression has more to do with the spirit of media consumer culture, than the mission of the body of christ (IMHO). The book seems to be more about ‘the quest for self expression’ than dealing with the realities of communal spirituality.
4. Grace: Spencer/Taylor want us to believe we are all born into in grace, rather than Grace coming through the death and resurrection of Jesus. In particular, he suggests salvation is about having faith in grace, with no mention of Jesus, his death and resurrection. Spencer’s theology of grace seems more about the authentic experiences of transcendence with individualized intensity, than that which Jesus brings through his life, death and resurrection into our live. In that, the book seemed to have much in common with the theology of our culture, and the ‘God of Grace’, that we see in footballers thanking God for touchdowns, or actors for winning Oscar’s. Grace almost seems to become a ‘thing’ for Spencer, a commodity of individual consumption that allows self expression. (And I’m making a big claim about Spencer’s theology here in a blog snippet paragraph, and probably doing it very badly).
5. Sin: And in this state of Grace, there is no real notion of sin, the consequences of Sin, and how it figures in spiritual formation, unless I missed it.
6. Bible: Some of Spencer/Taylor’s claims that no one recorded what Jesus said, and that we can’t take Jesus literally, left me feeling that the bible was being undermined. Now I’m all for narrative approaches to the bible etc, that lift us out of the historical critical straight jacket that atomized the bible into logical proofs. But Spencer’s approach left me feeling I could have no confidence in scripture at all. Not to mention his understanding of language, and interpretation seemed very ropey, but that is outside the realm of my expertise.
7. Universalism:Now I know from a detailed discussion on this site, amongst other things, that many of us have been moving from a hard exclusivism to a generous inclusivism, which seems more within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy. But Spencer/Taylor’s universalism goes to far for me, in that it left me asking, why bother with Jesus, and his mission, amongst the many other objections to universalism that there are.
8. Trinity: God is spirit for Spencer/Taylor not a person, or at least they say they doesn’t mind if God is not a person. I’m not willing to undermine or reject the orthodox view of the trinity, and think this has disastrous consequences for our understanding of salvation and spiritual formation, in fact most of our faith. I think this understanding of God as spirit is probably concomitant with Spencer’s theology of universalized grace.
9. Why Jesus?: And I came away overall thinking, why Jesus, why bother with him, is he just an example of someone who received the spirit of Grace, and is a great example to follow, with others? I didn’t recognise the Jesus of my faith, or the church traditions I am from, or the Jesus of the wider orthodox church.
If the book is about helping people understand that Christianity is more than praying a prayer to get to heaven, and church is more than structures around that process, I’m all for that. But for me the things above got in the way of that rather than helping.
I found the book hard as it seemed to wander over so many topics, so generally, making broad claims, that I found it hard to know what it was trying to do or be about. And in that, my critique here is superficial, and needs the help of some real theologians and biblical scholars. If your looking for a scholarly review, you would do well with:
Scott McKnight’s 4 responses to the book.
Tagged: A-Heretics-Guide-to-Eternity, Barry-Taylor, Books, Culture, Key-Posts, Orthdoxy, Spencer-Burke, Theology
27 comments
Trackback
Comment by Cynthia Ware
2.14 pm on 9 Oct 2006
Jason,
I don’t know if you have an equivalent phrase for the US idea that you can “be so open-minded that your brain falls out”? If you do we can use it here. Thank you for this simple summary & for the links to Scott McKnight’s responses.
Cynthia
Pingback by Emergent What? » Critique of “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity.”
3.55 pm on 9 Oct 2006
[...] Critique of “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity.” Posted by driverlikejehu on October 09th 2006 to Editorials When Spencer’s book hits the mainstream, sites like “Slice of Laodicea” and others will no doubt pounce on it as evidence of heretical thinking in the Emerging Church. Note well the following critiques of the book, written by those with standing in emerging circles. Here’s one by Jason Clark of Emergent UK [...]
Comment by Thomas E. Ward, Jr.
9.12 pm on 9 Oct 2006
Jason,
Thanks for writing this review. I also received a copy of Spencer’s book from the Publisher and found myself drawing similar conclusions. My review, which is still in draft form and may remain that way indefinitely, is strikingly similar to yours.
After just a cursory glance last month, I was lefting hoping for something more substantive and truly revolutionary from A Heretic’s Guide.
Peace to you.
Tom
Comment by Helen
12.47 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Jason,
Do we know what Brian McLaren thinks? Is it possible that you might be able to ask him at the conference, when you publically ask him questions, about whether he feels this is beyond Emergent into heresy?
My sense about Brian is that he doesn’t like to draw hard lines based on belief which define who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ because they are too far away. But I don’t know his writing that well so I may be wrong.
I think maybe one of the underlying issues is – is it Emergent to draw hard lines around belief like conservative evangelicals do – only, to move the line so it’s more inclusive? Or is that something that Emergent wants move away from?
Did Jesus draw clear, consistent, hard lines based on belief?
I’m not convinced he did – so I’m not convinced it’s a good idea for us to.
If Burke and Taylor are drawing a hard line by insisting that everyone is ‘in’ based on belief i.e. no belief can exclude anyone, then they too have the hard-line-drawing mentality.
Someone tell me – is drawing these hard lines based on belief Emergent, or not?
(Jason am I misconstruing you in saying you’re drawing hard lines based on belief? If so I apologize and please clarify your actual position for me.)
Comment by Jason
12.59 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Helen (3): Hi Helen, that’s a great question. If you read Brian McLaren’s ‘Secret Message of Jesus’, he talks abotu inclusion and exclusion. That too often we draw too tight lines and exclude everyone, similarly to have no lines is foolish too.
Whilst I think nothing is off limits for questions, when it comes to saying what is christian there have to be lines…
I know it’s obvious but I bet you would say christians aren’t supposed to murder and rape, and abuse people…that’s drawing a line and making a belief statement.
The bible is full of beliefs, and even Paul said unless we believe Jesus died and rose from the dead our faith is in vain.
Also Jesus made some very strong statements, jsut flick through some of them…
I think we have a responsibility to frame our discussions, and for me this book was too far, and not something I can believe in or recommend. And I don’t think that is a hard line, more of a marker.
Comment by graham
3.10 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Hi Jase,
(Any chance you could close the italics on comment #2?)
Though I was dissappointed by aspects of the book, I’m quite surprised by your review. On the first point, I think that Scot (and you) are just plain wrong. :-) The word has been used both inside and outside the Church for lesser crimes than denying orthodox Christian belief. But, I’ve said enough about that here.
Spencer certainly comes across as anti-institutional, but I’m not sure exactly what institution it is that he is opposing. Is it the historic Church, or Christianity itself, or the Church as it is today, or simply gathered Christians. Frankly, on this point I’m more bothered by Pete Ward than Spencer Burke.
However, I do think that Spencer goes too far and I wish that he’d spoken more about grace outside the institution. A radical inclusivism could have been offered without the need to virtually deny inclusion within the institutions.
I’m not sure what to make of point 4, as Burke is quite unclear there. I would, however, agree with your points 5 & 6 above.
I don’t think that the book does actually reject the trinity – and I believe that Spencer has been explicit about this since the book was published.
I don’t really understand your 9th point, but I do agree with the problems mentioned in your last paragraph.
Having said that, I honestly have problems with the book as well! :-)
Bless you.
Comment by Helen
3.44 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Jason in 4 wrote: Hi Helen, that’s a great question. If you read Brian McLaren’s ‘Secret Message of Jesus’, he talks about inclusion and exclusion. That too often we draw too tight lines and exclude everyone, similarly to have no lines is foolish too.
I see how no line presents no challenge and may be risky if there’s a line that needs crossing to ensure one’s eternal salvation.
But…how about a different approach altogether in which we live with the mystery – which challenges us because we can’t cling to ‘having crossed the right line’ for security?
I realized some years ago that that was the value of approaches with less certainty. Not knowing if we’re there yet challenges us to keep going so that we ensure we ‘made every effort’ (as the author of Hebrews exhorts us to do).
Whilst I think nothing is off limits for questions, when it comes to saying what is christian there have to be lines…
I guess I’m advocating a different approach…not one where there are ‘no standards’ but one where people are challenged in a different sort of way to follow Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.
I know it’s obvious but I bet you would say christians aren’t supposed to murder and rape, and abuse people…that’s drawing a line and making a belief statement.
See, the interesting thing is, Jesus implicitly criticized this kind of line drawing by saying (I’m paraphrasing) “the problem with ‘don’t murder’ is you think you’re off the hook if you don’t. But you shouldn’t be because thinking about murder is evil also.” He showed the limitations of line drawing. He said lines never go far enough, in fact…(imo)
The bible is full of beliefs, and even Paul said unless we believe Jesus died and rose from the dead our faith is in vain.
True
Also Jesus made some very strong statements, jsut flick through some of them…
He did and if we would take them seriously and be honest about the fact that we make lots of judgments about ‘what he really meant’ because some are so strong we can’t take them literally – we would realize that it’s unwise to draw hard lines when what we’re working with is our judgment calls about what Jesus meant.
I think we have a responsibility to frame our discussions, and for me this book was too far, and not something I can believe in or recommend. And I don’t think that is a hard line, more of a marker.
I respect your position. But I also think that Jesus deliberately said things in ways that were supposed to be hard to neatly package. So I like it when people challenge ‘the package’ and I think there is at least some room to challenge the package without denying what Jesus said – since a lot of human judgment calls (imo) get us from Jesus to the package.
I hope that makes sense and I do respect where you’re coming from. I just can’t find it in me to be that…well, that – “conventional”?
Comment by Jason
3.54 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Graham (5): Hi mate, great to hear from you. Given what you just said, I’m surprised you are surprised!
Anti-institution: At least as I read it the book seems against any organised religion, which I assume means church as it is…I think it’s great weakness of the book. It could do with a great deal of clarification. I convinced there is no such think as spiritual formation without organisation and structure. I’m all structures that support growth, but there is no such thing as non organised religion. A big topic!
Trinity: You are correct he doesn’t reject the trinity but he does make a statement about God as spirit and not person, which is trinitarian in construction. I do have a problem with God not being a person in the orthodox understanding of the trinity, but from Spencer said he doesn’t.
My 9th point was, I was left wondering what Jesus had to do with spiritual formaiton beyond being a holistic, tao, and exemplar of the spirit of grace, ie in terms of mediation, and appropriation…?
I’m not surprised you have problems with the book too! Thanks for helping me think. Jase.
Comment by Jason
4.00 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Helen (6): I’ll try not to take it personally calling me ‘conventional’ ;-) I’m not really tracking your response, but let me try again.
1. Beliefs: From what I know of you you have some very string beliefs, and you articulate, them, you did so for the reasons you left your last church for instance. I’m sure your not advocating we can believe whatever we want and it makes no difference.
2. Beliefs in the book: the book articulates some beliefs, which I do not believe, hence my points above in trying to say why I don’t. We must be free disagree, do you think I should agree with everything the book says?
3. Jesus did not operate with no beliefs or convictions, he challenge beliefs and convictions, and yes he may have been ambigous, and provoking and asked people questions etc, but he wasn’t belief less, or accepting of all beliefs, otherwise he would have been fine with the religious leaders of the day, and he was obviously very cross with them and thought they had things wrong.
4. Please don’t regard my critique of the book as support for the things about church that you don’t like…which I guess you are saying by your conventional label :-) or maybe not! In that sense I am very happy to be conventional when it comes to orthodoxy :-)
5. Take the issues I raise one at time and go through the book, and let’s discuss how you see them and compare them with your beliefs and my critique, after all it’s what the post was about, rather than the nature of belief (which is a great question as a said).
Thanks Helen, Jason
Comment by Helen
10.11 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Jason, thanks for your response.
I can’t do (5.) because the whole point for me is that I don’t want it to be about beliefs. My beliefs aren’t clearly defined and they can’t be – so I can’t compare them with someone else’s.
So, since I can’t do (5.) I’ll stop derailing your discussion and let other people who can do it, do it with you.
I’ll wait for something else to show up here that I can do (or at least I think I can do :-))
Comment by dh
10.46 pm on 10 Oct 2006
Helen, maybe that is the point? Maybe Christ wants us to have our beliefs in Him clearly defined? I love Jesus’s statement to Thomas regarding His unbelief. I think that is the goal. Just because you don’t want it to be about belief doesn’t change that it is. Just a thought. :)
Comment by fernando
9.26 am on 11 Oct 2006
thanks for the far, far, far more succicinct summary than I was able to manage.
it is a worthwhile book to read, but in the end rather unsastifying.
Pingback by A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity » The Blind Beggar
4.59 pm on 11 Oct 2006
[...] Jason Clark – A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Bob Hyatt – Oh, Spencer… Scott McKnight – Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 1 Scott McKnight – Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 2 Scott McKnight – Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 3 Scott McKnight – Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 4 Backyard Missionary – A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Part I Backyard Missionary – A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Part II Backyard Missionary – A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Part III Backyard Missionary – A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity – Final [...]
Comment by David
8.01 pm on 12 Oct 2006
Helen and Jason,
Thanks for the great discussion. I haven’t read Spencer’s book so I won’t attempt to comment on it. However I think your discussion has hit upon a central point for me at least.
Why did Jesus teach in the way he did. Are there not ways that he could have made the central ideas of Christianity clearer at least for modern Western sensibilities? But I think thats the point. For me he wasn’t setting out a series (or package if you wish) of beliefs – where the danger is that we’ll try to take them away divorced from him (as the Pharasee’s did). I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have beliefs – we can’t avoid having beliefs really. But I wonder if the central point he was trying to get across was that what we need is a relationship with him and through him with his Father. Beliefs while not being unimportant are secondary. If you know me then you’ll know my heart – the beliefs will follow. By presenting his message the way he did keeps us dependant on him and therefore leads us further into relationship in order to find answers.
I suppose in that sense our beliefs are never static because they are centred around our relationship with Jesus which is always on the move.
Hope I’ve not muddied the waters further.
David
Comment by dh
9.15 pm on 12 Oct 2006
Relationship to Christ is contengent apon Faith in Him alone and Faith in Him alone is contingent upon relationship to Christ equally and mutually exclusive. He clearly made it that He was the only way for Salvation. No one is taking them divorced of Him. The relationship is the most important but one can’t have a relationship unless we understand the nature of who the relationship is with. If we say we have a relationship with Christ and don’t believe that Jesus is God or Believe there are other ways other than Faith in Him and His death and resurrection (not saying that you are saying this) then one truly doesn’t have a relationship with Christ. That is why Jesus said sometimes “You are not far from the Kingdom.” He stated they weren’t far but didn’t say they were in. If you get my drift. I don’t see in God’s Word that Belief is secondary. I also don’t see that relationship is secondary. I believe that Belief and Relationship are equal and are mutually exclusive. You can’t have one without the other.
“Are there not ways that he could have made the central ideas of Christianity clearer at least for modern Western sensibilities?” It isn’t our job to say that Jesus statements were short on knowledge when what Hesaid wasvery clear especially in conjunction with the Epistles and other passages of God’s Word. Maybe (I believe it is) the “sensabilities” are wrong?
Comment by dh
9.17 pm on 12 Oct 2006
Relationship to Christ is contengent apon Faith in Him alone and Faith in Him alone is contingent upon relationship to Christ equally and mutually exclusive. He clearly made it that He was the only way for Salvation. No one is taking them divorced of Him. The relationship is the most important but one can’t have a relationship unless we understand the nature of who the relationship is with. If we say we have a relationship with Christ and don’t believe that Jesus is God or Believe there are other ways other than Faith in Him and His death and resurrection (not saying that you are saying this) then one truly doesn’t have a relationship with Christ. That is why Jesus said sometimes “You are not far from the Kingdom.” He stated they weren’t far but didn’t say they were in. If you get my drift. I don’t see in God’s Word that Belief is secondary. I also don’t see that relationship is secondary. I believe that Belief and Relationship are equal and are mutually exclusive. You can’t have one without the other.
“Are there not ways that he could have made the central ideas of Christianity clearer at least for modern Western sensibilities?” It isn’t our job to say that Jesus statements were short on knowledge when what Hesaid wasvery clear especially in conjunction with the Epistles and other passages of God’s Word. Maybe (I believe it is) the “sensabilities” are wrong?
You can’t have Belief without relationship (Pharisee’s) not can you have relationship without Belief (“Without Faith it is impossible to please God.”)
Comment by Helen
11.36 pm on 12 Oct 2006
Thanks for your comments, David.
I think maybe you’re close to where I’m coming from.
Comment by Jason
7.21 am on 13 Oct 2006
Hi David (12): great to hear from you! I think jesus was deliberately vague sometimes :-) It’s a good question, about beliefs and boundaries and if I get a chance I’ll post something about it for a seperate discussion.
In that sense comments on my comments, are more in contextn if you get to read the book.
Comment by Paul
9.40 am on 13 Oct 2006
I’ve been trying to avoid muddying the waters as it’s just not a conversation I feel I have anything to add. But Jase if you are going to post sometime on beliefs/boundaries I wonder if you could please maybe also give some thoughts to the changing pattern of experience informing practice informing beliefs rather than maybe a more modern version of propositions forming beliefs forming practices.
I have no idea if it is relevant to anyone one else in this conversation but to me i live with the tension of my own heretical thoughts jostling alongside orthodox ones, in part due to experience and the heretical ones get identified as i do things based on experiences and wonder why that doesn’t fit/work/ring true?
I clearly am a one field of wheat and tares :)
Comment by Jason
10.06 am on 13 Oct 2006
Paul (17): I hear you Paul, and from what I know of you your not a heretic, rather that the forms of church you have been in see the place of the questions you ask as some sort of deficiency….I’ll try to get something up next week…
Cheers, Jase
Comment by Paul
1.31 pm on 13 Oct 2006
thanks Jase, mucho appreciated :)
Comment by David
9.29 am on 14 Oct 2006
dh,
Thanks for your comments. I *think* I see what you are saying please forgive me if I don’t answer your point correctly. I think we can start to have a relationship with Jesus before we acknowledge him as our Lord so in that sense relationship comes first. Yes we need some belief that Jesus is able to hear our prayers although I’ve heard of folk praying initially without much belief that anyone is listening and yet God often seems to honour that. I agree with you that Jesus will lead us to the point where he will ask us to acknowledge him as our Lord – through relationship and very much through faith. Although in my experience it doesn’t end there. I seem to need a daily recommitment to have Jesus as Lord of my life for that day.
Yes you are right about our sensibilities although God can do all things and yet doesn’t seem to choose to make everything match our expectations.
Pingback by Criticism of Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, by Spencer Burke » Radical Congruency
9.02 pm on 15 Oct 2006
[...] Scot McKnight is very, very smart, and has a four-part critique of HGTE. Bob Hyatt, the new editor of the Next Wave zine, has two long, heartfelt posts about the book (first, second). Jason Clark of Emergent-UK offers a specific and succinct critique, along the lines of Scot McKnight’s. [...]
Comment by Sam L. Carr
8.09 am on 16 Oct 2006
I guess my concern is more on the results of discussions such as these for in whatever ways we are emerging, two points that we need to bear in mind 1. we are not somehow inherently better or more insightful or less prone to sin than other christians 2. we can attempt to not allow satan/sin/judgement to keep splitting us – fellowship first and last, in Jesus love and acceptance, even when we personally don’t agree.
Comment by dh
3.03 pm on 16 Oct 2006
David, thanks for the reply. I see what you are saying but I still feel that when it says “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” that it means confess with heart soul and mindand Believe that God has risen from the dead. That is the foundation. It appears the “daily recommitment” you are referring to IMO is the Sanctification beyond the initial conversion. Just to be honest there are times I don’t live for Christ like I should but that doesn’t change the fact that the Faith for Salvation is still there. On the expectations part it isn’t my expectations part but what God says through His Word. When we say something of His doesn’t match Western sensabilities that is when I feel the sensabilities are wrong.
Pingback by Jason Clark » Engaging with Culture: Learning from the early Church
7.55 am on 17 Oct 2006
[...] However, I think the interactions with culture have been largely uncritical (for example see A Heretics Guide to Eternity). We see this (I think) when people identify themselves as ‘postmodern christians’, almost as if culture has become their hermeneutic for what is real and true. Is it time the emerging church had not just a critique of modernity, but a robust critique of post-modernity? [...]
Pingback by Revolution Conference Blog » Blog Archive » Interview with a Heretic: Spencer Burke
8.29 am on 18 Oct 2006
[...] Spencer is a former megachurch teaching pastor and has also authored three books, including his current title, A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity. This new book wasn’t out long before a storm of controversy began swirling around it. All I had to do was google Spencer’s name to find bloggers filling up the blogosphere with generous doses of critical review. Jason Clarke, for example, blogged the reasons why he could not recommend the book. Jason, who is from the UK, is another featured speaker for the Rev conference. You can link to his review here. [...]
Comments are now closed.